SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE - Essay Example

? SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF CRIME AND DEVIANCE Task: Meaning and definition of social construction Baldock defines Social construction as the means in which crime and deviance in society can be formulated and fashioned by society, as well as social institutions (Baldock, 2007, p.12). This can come about in different ways. For instance, they can manipulate the perception of the public and descriptions of what sets up crime and deviance, and deviants or non-deviants. Additionally, they can influence the crime level in a society by intensifying it, thus fastening it. They can raise pressure for modifications in legislation, which can then change crime definitions and can criminalize activities formerly considered legal. Moreover, they can manipulate the degree, tendencies and recorded crime’s patterns in how they work. This essay tries to outline and assess the ways in which the terms ‘crime’ and ‘deviancy’ can be regarded as socially constructed terms. Theoretical concepts According to Interactionism, the descriptions of deviance and normality are significantly social constructions, as well as relative, implying that it depends on factors like the time, location and social background in which the act occurs whether the behavior is described as offense or abnormal (crime or deviant) (Muncie, 2001, p.15). Contrary, Marxism maintains that some law and social rules signify the interests of the influential groups in society. These refer to the individuals who have successfully inflicted their ideas and thoughts on the extensive population through oppression and ideological control. Consequently, they can impose their assumptions of crime, compared to the viewpoints of a layman individual. Moreover, Functionalism maintains the notion that the law and norms that stipulate acceptable behavior in a given society is primarily a product of legitimacy among the society. Additionally, the society formulates and imposes such laws and social rules to the advantage of each person. Consequently, deviance refers to behavior that breaks the above agreements on what is tolerable. Functionalists consider the above defining process as primary and objective. Crime, in the opinion of different people, refers to an act which goes against the law. Nevertheless, it is imperative, when discussing crime, to factor in several issues, which raise several significant questions concerning the manner in which a crime is viewed in a society. Considering certain questions like, who makes societal laws and why, is critical as any response to such a question is determined by debate on social and political power, class disparity and the manner in which a crime is socially constructed. Research by Baldock (2007) identifies that Social norms and values differ extensively across myriad cultures, faiths and societies. Even though it can be argued that when the above social norms are interrupted, the contravention of social rules can be illegitimate; it is imperative to categorize between crime and deviance which equally entail the infringement of social norms (Baldock, 2007.p.45). The notion that crime is socially constructed is incredibly vague such that it could lead to a lengthy deliberation and in huge data of information of the subject. Concisely, a crime is constructed through social laws, and the resolutions of authorities, to transform some of the above social laws into criminal laws. A study by Baldock et al identifies that; a crime can be regarded as a social construction because what is illegitimate in a particular society or culture might be legitimate in another society. Crime is frequently expressed as a physical fact by the either the government or the media (Baldock, 2007). Nevertheless, it can be identified that when an individual thinks of acts which are criminal in a particular place, yet the acts are criminal elsewhere, such crime is an indication of social construction. Considering the actions of the authorities interpreting which acts are criminal, it can as well be postulated that authorities such as the government define such acts as criminal. The above notion may help clarify why different societies and different governments formulate different laws in different settings; the response being that certain governments may entail different agendas, which apply to the society’ social order. The above- mentioned argument regarding social power maintains the viewpoint that crime is a product of social construction. From a feminist viewpoint, for instance, it is postulated that criminal law is principally ill-mannered of the sexual along with physical violence over women. For example, rape inside marriage was permissible up to 1991 in countries like England and Wales (Baldock, 2007, 57). One may postulate that this is down to the different politicians in key government positions being superior males. Consequently, the choice to criminalize rape within marriage could be utilized as an example to propose that crime is a product of social construction. Crime as social construction While talking about crime as a product of social construction, it is as well vital to distinguish between crime and deviance because not all infringements of social norms can be regarded as criminal. A study by Muncie (2001) describes deviance as “...any non- conformist behavior, which is disapproved of by society or a social group, whether it is illegal or not.” (p.15.). Similarly, Woolgar and Pawluch (1985) express crime as a form of deviance and describe crime as “the violation of norms that as society formally enacts into criminal law.” (p.14). They, additionally, identify that there are different kinds of norms, including sexual norms, spiritual norms and health norms. This implies that not every deviance is regarded criminal. Since, a sick individual is not regarded as a criminal by the society, this absolutely shows how not every deviation from social norms qualifies as being criminal. Difference between crime and deviance To describe the distinction between crime and deviance, one has to note that crime is the contravention of legal norms, whereas deviance is the contravention of social norms. Occasionally, this can be a similar norm which is broken; even if certain acts of deviance are not regarded as criminal and some criminal acts are never socially considered as deviant. Concisely, crime is referred to by segments of media and authorities as a physical fact. Conversely, it is apparent that crime is a product of social construction as a society properly decides on which norms to comply with by enacting them into law. If the above laws are infringed, the act is, therefore, regarded a crime. Even though certain acts of deviance are criminal, it is the infringement of every social norm, whether criminal or not criminal, which pronounces them deviant and, thus, it distinguishes a crime act and a deviant behavior. With respect to social constructionists, what adds up as crime differs depending on the person who is describing it: “There are hardly, clear objective, definitions; every definition is value loaded and prejudiced to some extent, and whatever is described as crime by law “is rather subjective and represents an extremely discriminatory process” (Barak, 1998, p. 21). The above social constructionist challenge to the fact of crime as stipulated by law is entrenched in an account of critical theory. In particular, social constructionists have been condemned with respect to how pragmatist or nominalist their key suppositions are. Pro-realists blame constructionists of nihilisticism and intuitiveness; anti-realists mock any effort at science as simply one more truth claim that is utilizing scientific philosophy to claim legality for its own political rewards (Woolgar and Pawluch, 1985, p. 87). Anti-realists maintain that one’s claim to be able to examine and document the inconsistency in claims regarding a condition, assumes the impartiality of the condition without automatically subjecting one's individual assessment to similar questioning. Relative constructionists counteract that a strict antirealist reading is a delusion that cannot be transcended by developing new language and dialogue as language is entrenched in society (Best, 1995). Considerably, radical social constructionism has been condemned for implying that crime problems and deviance are simply fabrications, which is protected by the persons suffering their penalty, although constructionists postulate that there are habitually real cost of acting toward constructions as if they are authentic. The key focus in constructionism is principally to enlighten an individual on how to deconstruct what is factual. When social problems, such as deviance and crime, are subject to a deconstructionist examination, they can be reframed in ways that allow their reproduction to be slowed and even become overturned (Henry & Milovanovic, 1996). Certainly, the challenge for constructionists is how to express the value of such analysis by initiating changes in objective circumstances s(Chapman, 2004). Deviance as a social construction Sociologists view deviance as a social construction as it results from behavior rules in society. Deviance occurs when a person or individuals who consider inhibited by the rules discover different ways of articulating themselves. They can either conform or fail to adhere to the societal norms. Consequently, every society or culture formulates behavior rules by which its people are administered and, inevitability, proscribed. When one appreciates the above idea they can thereafter consider different ideas concerning what is deviant and acquiescent behavior. Firstly, an individual considers the way ideas concerning what entails deviant behavior are products of social constructions (accordingly, whenever an individual is describing deviance, the notion of ideology becomes significant). Therefore, ideology is a significant feature of deviance sociology because it appears apparent that one of the vital variables entailed in describing a deviant behavior and non-deviant act is the fundamental values individuals in any society hold (Lawson, 2000). Nonetheless, whereas this is evidently vital, ideology itself is not a satisfactory form of justification because it is obvious that individuals can significantly reflects what they admire regarding their personal live and behavior of other individuals. What is significant is one’s ability or incapability to inflict his ideas concerning "normality” and extensively, is deviance on other people. Therefore, one has to construct the notion of power into all descriptions about deviant and non-deviant acts. Consequently, one could identify that some acts are regarded deviant not because they are intrinsically incorrect, but because influential individuals in a society argue that they are deviant and have the capability to inflict their description of normality on other people. Concisely, it becomes obvious that deviance is not significantly a matter of what an individual does, but considerably an issue of whether or not others go against to what an individual does. Conclusion In conclusion, this essay has explored two aspects of social construction; that is crime and deviance. Particularly, the paper has presented an outline and assessment of the ways in which the terms ‘crime’ and ‘deviancy’ can be regarded as socially constructed terms. Through the several examples provided, the paper has identified that for one to articulate that something is a product of social construct primarily implies that its reality is not intrinsic, instead, is interceded through by social context and through social interaction. Consequently, homicide deviance (and of practically any other prospective deviant act) has to be socially constructed given that whether one treats it as a deviant behavior or not depend not merely on the behavior, itself, but rather on the social conditions under which the act took place. Moreover, in its findings the paper concludes that although some societies have categorized certain things as prohibited, the criterion employed to accomplish such kind of task is principally with respect to the respective societal norms. Consequently, if something in a certain society does not conform to societal norms, the authorities in that community categorize such things as crimes or taboos. Concisely, the above criterion has been utilized by several societies in order to come up with acceptable behavior and prohibited behavior. As such, crime and deviance therefore qualifies being categorized as products of social construction. However, the paper has emphasized that what seems as a crime or a deviant behavior in one community can be regarded as acceptable behavior in another society. This implies that different communities have different descriptions for what they is regarded as acceptable behavior. Nevertheless, since crime and deviance have been categorized as unacceptable behaviors across almost all societies, one can therefore postulate that they are all products o social construction. Consequently, all societies have put in place certain limits that their individuals must comply with. Thus, any individual whom crosses such limits is categorized as a deviant person who has committed a crime. References Baldock, J. et al 2007, Crime and Deviance: an Introduction to Sociology, Florence, Cengage Barak, D 1998, The Social Construction of Crime, Letts and Lonsdale publishers Chapman, S 2004, Sociology, Holme, Carnforth, Letts and Lonsdale publishers Henry, T & Milovanovic, F 1996, The Deviance Process, Monroe, Sage publishers Muncie, J & McLaughlin, W 2001, The Problem of Crime, Ganado, Sage publishers Lawson, T et al, 2000, Advanced Sociology Through Diagrams. New York, Oxford University Press Woolgar, S & Pawluch, J 1985, An introduction to sociology, New York, Oxford University Press Read More